The Supreme Court of Westeros, ruling 17

Thursday is court day!
Welcome to the Supreme Court of Westeros! Every week, three pressing questions from the community will be answered by the esteemed judges Stefan (from your very own Nerdstream Era) and Amin (from A Podcast of Ice and Fire). The rules are simple: we take three questions, and one of us writes a measured analysis. The other one writes a shorter opinion, either concurring or dissenting. The catch is that every week a third judge from the fandom will join us and also write a dissenting or concurring opinion. So if you think you're up to the task - write us an email to stefan_sasse@gmx.de, leave a comment in the post, ask in the APOIAF-forum or contact Amin at his tumblr. Discussion is by no means limited to the court itself, though - feel free to discuss our rulings in the commentary section and ask your own questions through the channels above.
One word on spoilers: we assume that you read all the books, including the Hedge Knight short stories, and watched the current TV episodes. We don't include the spoiler chapters from various sources in the discussion, with the notable exception of Theon I, which was supposed to be in "A Dance with Dragons" anyway.
And now, up to ruling 17 of the Supreme Court of Westeros! Our guest judges this week are Elio and Linda, founders of Westeros.org and authors of the upcoming "The World of Ice and Fire" companion volume. You can follow them on Twitter.

Is King Robert justified in his attempted attempt to kill the pregnant Dany? Does he conflate the safety of his House with the safety of the Realm? Does she present a credible enough threat to justify assassination?

Main Opinion: Stefan

In my opinion, you cannot really argue this one from the standpoint of whether or not the threat she poses or not poses was credible or not. We’re talking about a moral question, not a pragmatic problem-solution-complex. If you’re on the Machiavellian side of politics, the answer is easy: kill her, because why risk anything? But if you’re of a more delicate conscience, killing a girl whose only crime is existing isn’t justifiable. No, let’s examine Danaerys at the time Robert has any chance to kill her. For the most time, she’s a fugitive in the Free Cities and stared at as a curiosity, but most of the time laughed out of the cities because of the bad image her brother has. The Targaryens are the butt joke of the Free Cities. Look, I have a king in my house, snigger snigger, but they are no threat. Especially not since except for Dorne, there are no Targaryen loyalists of any stature in the realm. This changes when Dany marries Khal Drogo, but the prospect of a Dothraki horde invading the Seven Kingdoms still doesn’t seem as credible to me. However, if you want to eliminate even the slightly possible Targaryen threats to avoid yet another war on the Iron Throne (I see the irony here, Mr. Martin), then you have to weigh it on your conscience. I guess it’s kind of the same question whether or not you condone of killing Al-Qaida leaders with drone strikes. Do we know for certain they did something? No. Will they do anything after? No. So is Robert justified? I think his reasoning is sound. We as readers know that Dany will pose a threat later on, but at the moment that Robert makes the decision, the probability of a Dothraki intervention is close to zero (it is only created by Robert’s botched assassination attempt in the first place, ironically). But Robert has no way of knowing that. If Danaerys and/or Viserys ever make it over the Narrow Sea (note that he doesn’t want to kill Viserys explicitly because he doesn’t seem to regard him as a threat) with an army, blood will flow. To speak with Varys: isn’t it kinder even to only kill a single life? I’d say yes, then it would be. But the information Robert has is a bit too sketchy for my taste, at least too sketchy to kill someone over.

Concurring Opinion: Elio&Linda

If we accept that Khal Drogo would keep his bargain with Viserys at some point in time, then it seems clear that there were circumstances where Viserys would eventually have crossed the narrow sea with an army of Dothraki (and, presumably, sellswords) at his back. However, the arrangement with Drogo appeared to entail Drogo providing him a portion of his khalasar, not the entire force. The thing that Robert did not consider, and the thing which made his choice erroneous, was that it appears likely that if Daenerys had been successfully killed it would only have driven Drogo to seek revenge and eventually attempt to bring his whole khalasar over. So, was Robert justified in his belief that Daenerys was a threat? Yes. Was she a threat to his house? Yes. Was she a threat to the stability of the realm? Yes. But by the time he decided to assassinate her, the attempt to assassinate her would be ill-advised.

Concurring Opinion: Amin

I agree with my fellow justices that Robert was not justified in trying to kill Dany. Beyond the reasons already given, Robert let anger toward the Targaryens cloud his thinking and the issue. Robert talks about possible rebellion if the Dothraki cross the sea, but the fact that Dany was married to a Dothraki ruler made her less politically useful, as that “barbarian” lineage would not have helped her child’s political claim in Westeros. Dany would have been more politically useful to broker a marriage alliance with a powerful lord in Westeros (perhaps in Dorne) to aid Viserys’ cause, but Robert fixates on Dany and the impending pregnancy. Dany’s marriage was seemingly militarily useful, but killing her at that point would just as likely cause a war (as it almost did) than prevent one. It would have been best to secure her early in Robert’s reign and marry her to one of Robert’s sons or brothers, but Robert was not one to forgive “dragonspawn”.

Final Verdict: Robert shouldn’t have given the order. It was bad politics at the least.

Was Arya’s killing of Daeron justifiable?

Main Opinion: Stefan

When Arya stabbed and killed the deserted Night’s Watch singer, her justification for it was that he was a deserter, which is a crime punishable by death. Some people are inclined to agree, but there is no way that Arya has any justification to kill the man. First, some legal aspects, to get them out of the way. Arya is no lord, and only they hold the right of Pits and Gallows that allows to condemn a man to death. Second, they’re in Braavos, where Westerosi law doesn’t even apply. By all the legal standards, she’s just a murderer, nothing more. So, the question of whether or not the killing was justified as a moral act remains. But here, too, Arya doesn’t gain any justification. Why? Because while Daeron certainly deserted his brothers, he didn’t cause them any damage that would justify deadly violence against him. He didn’t endanger Sam and Aemon (Sam’s poor bartering skills were sufficient), and he hadn’t the watch or anything. The “punishment” Arya gives out on her own stands in no relation to the crime. Again, keep in mind we don’t talk legalities anymore, but moral. That means that you only justify the killing when you have a Stannis-like moral of that laws are iron and even to be kept where they don’t formally apply. Additionally, in Daeron’s case, the man wasn’t even guilty in the first place. He only came to the Wall because his lord was a major dickhead, applying the usual standards of Westerosi civil rights we’ve come to love about the place. So, Arya kills a guy who basically takes the least harmful situation imaginable to set a wrong he suffered aright for himself, just because it makes her feel good. Great, Arya, real great. I sure hope that’s a revelation that’ll come to you in due time.

Concurring Opinion: Elio&Linda

Arya certainly had no legal justification for killing Daeron, which leads then to whether there was moral justification, and it seems clear enough that at this point Arya was not being moved by morality but rather a sort of misguided attempt to maintain a tenuous connection to Jon Snow. She lies about what she did, after all, showing her own awareness that what she did was wrong.

Dissenting Opinion: Amin

Legally, I would say that Daeron had broken his oath to the Night’s Watch and could be killed for it. It does not matter that Daeron was in Braavos or any other place: he deserted the Watch and that is a crime, no matter where he is. Perhaps it would have been best to take him back (extradite) to the Wall for punishment, but if the punishment does not apply, does that mean any person from the Watch can desert as long as they make it over to Essos? And it doesn’t seem like the Braavosi, who tolerate live duels going on in their city, would mind that much about it. The only quibble legally, as Justice Stefan pointed out, is whether Arya herself could have done it, or whether only a lord could do it. But I will, at the least, disagree with the general argument accepted by the majority that there was no legal justification. Morally, the issue is very complicated and I don’t have a problem with accepting the majority’s ruling on the immorality of Arya’s actions.

Final Verdict: Arya had absolutely no justification for killing Daeron.

What happened to House Whent?

Main Opinion: Stefan

I wondered that myself often enough. It’s always mentioned that Lady Whent just gave Harrenhal over to Tywin Lannister, but after that, she’s never mentioned again. It’s almost like Martin simply forgot about her, because it seems like if the Lannisters murdered her, some of the servants in Harrenhal would have talked about it. But they didn’t, so I guess she either died a natural death or is still alive. Knowing that she is a Lady Whent ruling Harrenhal and that the house didn’t lack for heirs in the Year of the False Spring, it’s reasonable to assume that she is the last of her line and too old to marry. The ease with which Harrenhal is awarded to Janos Slynt and then Littlefinger means that she doesn’t hold the title any longer. My guess is she was stripped of the title and either joined the Silent Sisters or was brought to the Rock as a captive. She then either died already (she seems to have been old), or still is there unable to take influence again. House Whent basically serves as an example of how houses can end without a last blaze of glory, but just whither away, I guess.

Concurring Opinion: Elio&Linda

Petyr Baelish states that he has heard Lady Whent has died in the course of “A Feast for Crows”. However, it's notable that the appendices (so far at least) have not marked her as dead, so this may well be erroneous information on his part. In any case, it does appear that Lady Whent opted to give up the castle without a fight, realizing that she had no hope of holding it against Tywin Lannister. She may have withdrawn to some friendly castle, or indeed to a motherhouse or some other sanctuary, at first to see if she'd get the castle back and then, presumably, to just keep going on. The Whents were an old house -- older than their tenancy of Harrenhal -- and it seems that their story has, or will very soon, come to a close.

Concurring Opinion: Amin

Good question, but not much information available to answer it. My fellow justices have covered the matter suitably, I concur with their opinions. The point on the appendix is interesting, as that could imply that the information is erroneous or that Martin has partially forgotten about her, both options that have been mentioned in the decisions.

Final Verdict: House Whent is likely extinguished, but we can’t be sure.